|
Where's the link for Verrit in the OP? How are we supposed to sign up for it without so much as a Daou-tweet to guide us?
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
botany posted:but we already had a USpol thread But they're so young! Why, 14-year olds are practically babies! If we sought justice from them, that would ruin their lives forever and ever, and it's not like this 8-year old hulking menace is going to be permanently traumatized for being lynched and almost killed!  RuanGacho posted:This is definitely the thread for talking about how hosed up whitey is. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear in this case that this is what people are talking about when they say "white devils" or CACs or whatever. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Odd, it seems kids can be tried as adults in new hampshire, and they've done so in other attempted murder cases. Wonder why they're trying to rehabilitate these particular murderous kids? They're all good boys that just got mixed up in something bad...no need to make a federal case out of it. <-most of white America's mindset
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The amendment he voted against was totally safe, y'all. It's why Paul, Cruz, and Lee voted for it! Are we that far through the looking glass? Is it now a betrayal to insist on stronger safety standards than the unpasteurized milk crowd? This turned out to be total horseshit actually. Booker knows perfectly well that drug safety was not an issue with that (purely symbolic bill): quote:The safety excuse has long been a refuge for policymakers who don’t want to assist Americans struggling with prescription drug costs. Bills to legalize importation passed in 2000 and 2007, but expired after the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to certify that it would be safe. The Obama administration also cited safety concerns when opposing an importation measure in the Affordable Care Act. Dude's cynical as all hell. He deserves his reputation as an underhanded used car salesman-type. e: Glad he's co-sponsoring this bill though. He knows which way the wind is blowing. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Not even a little. Factually, everything in my post was correct, No, it really was pretty inaccurate and misleading. No one on the left is calling for lower safety standards - they are only pointing out that Booker's excuse for capsizing a non-binding amendment is nonsense, which it is. These medications already meet our safety standards, because they were manufactured in the U.S. originally before being imported by Canada. That is why this process is calling reimportation - because we would simply be buying back the drugs that we already sold to Canada. Again, as it was a non-binding amendment to a budget appropriations bill that he voted down, and given how much money he gets from Big Pharma, it's not exactly a stretch to deduce why Booker voted the way he did. He's a massive whore for Big Pharma. Xae posted:Read the actual text of Sanders bill. It did not need safety provisions, because the drugs were manufactured in the U.S. and already met the safety standards. It wasn't even a bill; it was a non-binding amendment. Get your facts straight. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Xae posted:Like I said: Read the text yourself. I have. What point are you trying to make, that this amendment would actually have been binding, and that it was therefore very important for Booker to help defeat? Because I hate to tell you, but that's not the case at all. Hellblazer187 posted:There's a strain of leftism that wants to believe "no war but the class war," and in so doing they do not give proper attention to issues of racial equality. That is a far, far cry from "calling minimum wage increases racist." The people you're describing here are a marginal percentage of left-Dems, Sanders supporters, DSA members, etc, though. The vast majority of these groups (and certainly their leaders) fully acknowledge that issues of racial inequality need to be addressed with extra emphasis, and that economic justice will not lead to an end to racism. e: Good typo catch, thanks Condiv! Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:It never occurred to me that people would blame the recipients of Oh sure. It's part of the broader mindset of, "Well, THOSE people just can't be trusted to use money responsibly; that's why it's ethical for society to keep giving people like ME more money, because I know how to use it better! Silly poors!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Xae posted:It was baby's first power play from Sanders. He left out key wording from the Amendment to poison pill it. It was a loyalty test. Bullshit, if that were the case, more Democrats (particularly centrists) would have voted against it. Again, it was a non-binding amendment, so there was really nothing to poison pill.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Xae posted:Why have more people vote against the bill than are necessary to kill it? Well, for starters, I'm sure the fact that Booker, Murray, and Casey are among the top ten recipients of money from the pharmaceutical industry, and their vote on this bill, is purely coincidental.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:At no point in the text is country of origin mentioned (it's not reimportation) Safety is only mentioned as "safe and affordable", which is especially vacuous, even for a non-binding amendment. One of us is certainly being "inaccurate and misleading" here. Yes, it's still you. The notion that Booker was protecting anyone but his major donors from a lack of safety provisions in a non-binding amendment is pretty absurd. The guy's bought-and-sold for.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who focuses on race issues but not class especially since they are very intertwined. Really? That was a defining characteristic of the Clinton '16 campaign. (which was ironically a 180 from her "white working class" focus in 2008)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Are you seriously saying that the Clinton campaign had 0 plans for the economy or class issues? No, but she and her campaign didn't run on these issues, either. Her default answer to questions about economic justice was, "Check my webpage." And it's one thing to back a strategy that ultimately fails; I can pretty readily forgive someone who admits that they backed the wrong horse. But the fact that so many of her big-time fans, like Joy Ann Reid, still insist that the Democrats need to jettison the working class in favor of city-dwellers in order to win elections, is pretty galling.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:oh, hey, another thread full of Majoran and Condiv telling us why Bernie Was Right And Would Have Won I too remember when Bernie Sanders wrote a memoir after the election that blamed his loss on everyone but himself and his campaign advisors. Clearly it's the left-Dems that are the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For the people that'd care about a Muslim president there already has been one. This is really well-put. I'm not sure anyone who would be turned off by his religion would have voted for him anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Has anyone else noticed nearby dogs losing their minds and bleeding from the skull? Why do you feel the need to make a distinction between "the working class" and "city-dwellers"? Does the more urban version not count, for some reason? I'm paraphrasing the way Reid herself has put it; I'm not trying to dogwhistle: https://twitter.com/joyannreid/status/881278529182158848 Her strategy for the Democratic Party has been to rely on the axiom that demographics equals destiny, and that getting out the vote in big urban centers will swing presidential elections. The problem is, this doesn't really work at getting over the 270 hump in the EC. We're not going to be a minority-majority nation until around 2040, and I'm pretty sure we can't wait that long.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:let alone win at the state and local levels, which you kinda need to do in order to be a national party Exactly. And she's a very smart person, who has offered some pretty insightful commentary in the past. So it's a shame to see her back such a bad strategy going forward, having apparently learned all the wrong lessons from 2016. (or the past decade, for that matter)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The biggest challenge on the state and local level is that there's more than a bit of a catch 22 in many states where in order to win you need the district lines to be unfucked, but until the SCOTUS stops loving the constitution that would require for the left to win the seats that determine how those lines are drawn. All true, but yikes, the Democrats didn't help their prospects at all by basically putting all their chips on keeping the presidency and letting state governments go to seed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I don't see working class mentioned anywhere in there. So you put it in. I didn't "put" anything in there; she's been very openly derisive of economic populism as a strategy for months: https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/902973802207862784 Again, listen to her Pod Save America appearance. She genuinely believes that the browning of America will save us all. e: And even with your charitable reading of Reid's tweet, it still doesn't address the biggest problem with her viewpoint, ie: how the hell does that get you over 270 EV? Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Am I missing something about Joy Reid? Reid's being touted as a big up-and-comer in the field of political punditry. She has been all over political podcasts and TV talk shows spewing anti-populism poo poo nonstop since the election. Her Daily Show interview was only a couple weeks ago, and holy moly, was it out-of-touch. Also Blitzer is a noted moron, so of course no one gives a poo poo about him. Maddow has overplayed her hand on the Russia investigation ("tax returns!!!"), but she hasn't said anything as horribly deluded as Reid.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:You put a split between urbanite and working class. That was not there in her tweet. It's also not in her Daily Show appearance (unless your definition of "working class" is her referenced "Pabst Blue Ribbon voter, the kind of Coors Lite-drinking voter." in which case I'm absolutely done being charitable). What, exactly, do you think she meant by that? e: quote:She believes that Dems are better suited by getting out the vote among their base than trying to convert Trump voters. Given the (justified) opposition to the old Schumer quote, I would think you'd be on board with that. Study after study, exit poll after exit poll, show that the economically disadvantaged broke for Clinton. Out of those who voted, yes. But there's the problem: the working class, by and large, didn't turn out to vote in 2016. Voter disenfranchisement can only go so far in explaining that, too. Writing the rest off, as Reid does in the TDS interview, by saying, "Those [formerly Democratic] voters are Republican," and claiming, "They don't care about economics"? I'm sorry, but that's absurdly bad political commentary. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Sep 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:wait, who was it who said joy "soviet yugoslavia" reid was smart? She was smart at one time. She was even a big Bernie fan until 2015-ish, then suddenly did a weird 180 on him.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:or she's as mercenary as any other hack I don't know how could possibly say tha- https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/893861309401497600 The Muppets On PCP posted:not so much weird as she was hired by msnbc when andy lack took over from phil griffin You're right, should have said "jarring" instead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:That a small portion of the working class-predominantly rural, white, and culturally conservative-votes for the GOP out of values that are incompatible with the Democratic Party rather than for economic reasons. Yet no one has suggested that the Democrats go after those voters, so your explanation is a total non-sequitur. What people are saying the Dems need to win back are those voters who went for Obama in '08 and '12, but flipped to Trump or stayed home in 2016. That is what Reid has been objecting to passionately for about ten months now. Her thesis during the TDS interview is this part: quote:Because democrats...they understand, that deep down, they're the party of black and brown people. Of gay people. Of marginalized people. Her strategy is, "Give up on the white working class, and on rural parts of the country, because they are all irretrievably Republicans now. Do not try to persuade anyone of your vision. Just rely on demographics." It is a very, very short-sighted strategy. quote:Do you understand why it's an issue that you, out of whole cloth, split "working class" from "city-dwellers"? Reid was the one who did that, not me, and yes, it was extremely problematic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I think "go after white working class!" vs "ignore the white working class, go totally urban!" is a ridiculous false dichotomy. There's no reason the Democratic Party can't BOTH embrace economic populism while also working explicitly on some racial issues. There is a set of white folks who would be in favor of economic reforms but will vote R because the Ds are "for the blacks" or whatever. gently caress those guys specifically, but still totally try to get every other white working class voter.  , and one would think that every Dem could agree with that. But watch the Daily Show interview; Trevor Noah flat-out asks Reid why they can't do both. Her answer? "They're Republicans!" (except they're not)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/907563016895463424 Poor Sarah Kendzior doesn't deserve this. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Wait, what did she say about Obama? Obama, the guy who ran around campaigning for her? Did she say something lovely about him not taking public sides in the primary until it was basically over or what? “I do wonder sometimes about what would have happened if President Obama had made a televised address to the nation in the fall of 2016 warning that our democracy was under attack. Maybe more Americans would have woken up to the threat in time. We’ll never know.” She later on says that Obama asked her to lay off of Sanders so that the primary wouldn't get uglier, as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Don't forget hilariously skewed press coverage. Yeah, this is one area where I agree with Clinton: the media really hosed us all in 2016. I can't imagine a more obviously cynical display than poo poo like keeping cameras on Trump's empty podium.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The media has always been a factor, and understanding how it works has swung presidential elections before. For all his many faults, Trump understood the media, and he obliged them with plenty of rating-grabbing showmanship. The media's always going to train its sights on what it thinks is the better story. This is something that Clinton herself seemed to know in her heart of hearts, but never wanted to admit and deal with the implications. Ezra Klein has a surprisingly insightful piece on this: (emphasis mine)quote:On page 239 of What Happened, Hillary Clinton reveals that she almost ran a very different campaign in 2016. Before announcing for president, she read Peter Barnes’s book With Liberty and Dividends for All, and became fascinated by the idea of using revenue from shared natural resources, like fossil fuel extraction and public airwaves, alongside revenue from taxing public harms, like carbon emissions and risky financial practices, to give every American “a modest basic income.” Even from a pragmatic, only-interested-in-winning-elections perspective, the Dems absolutely need to make big, sweeping, inspiring promises, and then fight for them. If they don't succeed, they don't succeed, but they need to at least try.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:We still have people in this thread (and all other past iterations of USPol and in the toxic waste dump that is the Dems thread) making GBS threads all over Clinton for not being progressive enough and not being a true champion for change, etc, etc. How do you think that well got poisoned? Welfare Reform, the '94 crime bill, the Gramm Bill, the bad parts of NAFTA...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I can't help but feel that a part of this though is that the regressive side of the voting public is very much more willing to eat outlandish promises up wholesale and not react negatively to being lied compared to the progressive side. I think there's a lot of truth to this, but that still leaves a lot of ground for progressive candidates to play around in. "Medicare For All" still needs to have a lot of details hammered out, but it's both aspirational and inspirational, and it's a hell of a lot more believable than most of the poo poo Trump promised.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Very much so. And really I think the approach would be to not promise it, but make it loud and clear that you will work towards it. Compromise isn't great, it's the nature of compromise, but until the progressive-left wing has a large enough majority of congress, the presidency, and the SCOTUS, that is more likely to happen than not. Oh sure, it would be pretty dumb to promise today that single payer will be fully implemented a year from now. It's gonna be a fight, and it won't be a short one. But it's a great thing to tie to elections: "Want Medicare For All? Yeah, drat right you do. So vote these chucklefucks out of power, vote in these candidates, and let's make this happen."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I don't stay at Motel 6's, but I really won't be staying there now. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:While I certainly agree on one level, I've got a cynical enough view of the general public that if you run on that but don't win enough, they'll blame you for not achieving it even though you couldn't. That's not the lesson I've learned from observing the far right, though. The House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times at this point, and none of those attempts have been successful, but that hasn't dimmed the enthusiasm of their base. Indeed, their continuing to beat the drum has helped put them in control of the entire government. Really the only reason why the ACA has survived the last few months is that Trump is literally the most inept politician this country has ever seen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:That runs along with the comment I made earlier regarding regressive voters. That and they could blame the Secret Muslim President. It makes it easier for the HFC that their constituents are a bunch of smoothbrains, no question, but I don't think Democratic voters are so different that they would punish earnest-but-failed efforts at popular legislation. Plus it's not like Trump isn't as big a target for Democratic voters as Obama was for Republicans.(unfair and loony though their hatred of him was) The bottom line, imo, is that the Dems need promise big, sweeping changes if they get elected, and then make it clear to voters that the Republicans are why we can't have nice things. Right now, that isn't as clear to voters as it needs to be - in the mind of a lot of Democratic voters, prominent Democratic leaders are also why we can't have nice things. See, for example, Pelosi whiffing on the Medicare For All question recently.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Except it is a completely empty thing they are signing on to. It has less than 0% chance of going anywhere no matter how many Democrats sign on. This particular bill probably won't pass now, but its success or failure isn't tied up in whether or not it gets signed into law. Having centrists like Booker sign on helps normalize it. Single payer now seems a lot more attainable than it did a couple years ago, and the more that legislators back it, the closer it will be to a reality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:You're a lot more optimistic of progressive voters than I am. I hope you're right. Eh, they're humans. In the end, they want to be inspired, to be part of something bigger than they are. Obama succeeded when he tapped into this. When he failed, it was because he didn't seem to be fighting for what he had promised anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
axeil posted:because he's not a Democrat by his own admission Why does this matter to you, if he caucuses with the Democrats? I still don't understand why this is such an odious thing to Clintonistas. A lot of Democratic voters aren't registered Democrats, and yet the Dems need their votes desperately.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:The problem, of course, is that Republicans have managed to get themselves a permanent underclass who would never, ever vote Democrat, and then give that underclass undue electoral power. True, but that's still a relatively small portion of the electorate - 30%, or thereabouts. Big enough to be a real problem, but not insurmountable, even with their electoral advantages. Even with them, while it's unlikely you could ever get them to vote for the Dems, it's possible to at least make them feel less compelled to get out and vote against the Dems. Obama did this pretty successfully in 2012, in casting Romney as "the guy who fired your dad."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Xae posted:The book hasn't been released yet. I'm not sure what context there could be that would change the meaning of the quotes that have been posted. The whole "magic abs/free pony" nonsense and her claims that Sanders' (extremely mild) attacks paved the way for the "Crooked Hillary" slam are pretty cut-and-dry assertions. axeil posted:Not only that, but is actively hostile to doing that and when you point out that hey, while this guy might have some good ideas he's being kind of a lovely person and hurting things you get mobbed by his cultists. You came into this discussion saying "gently caress Bernie Sanders," and now you're saying he's being kind of a lovely person. It's maybe a little bit on you if you find yourself getting mobbed. Also, what is he doing that makes you think he's being kind of a lovely person? Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
awesmoe posted:I can't speak for axiel but if you want to know the specific ways hilary clinton thinks so she just discussed it on the pod save america podcast which is what started this discussion Can you post a couple examples? I'd rather not pick through all 47 minutes of that interview.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 21:24
|
|